I don't see it as an us vs. them, to me science and philosophy are inseparable, and trying to separate them makes science a religion and philosophy something irrelevant to most people. I see the whole endeavor of making observations and thinking about them and interpreting them and comparing them and connecting them as both science and philosophy, they didn't use to be separate in the minds of people, but now they are for no good reason in my view, simply because of confusions and misconceptions. — leo

No, no, that is further proof of the deep interconnection of science and philosophy. The "us versus them" argument refers to specifically people. You believe that philosophy is important and they disagree. That conflict is what I think the problem is, and I'm not disagreeing with you on the importance of philosophy. I'm sorry if that came out wrong earlier, because someone else also questioned that.

So whatever progress is a result of what I would call science-philosophy, even scientists who say they despise philosophy make use of it in their research, they just don't realize it, but that means they are often not aware of their beliefs underlying their research. Also I disagree that what we call 'progress' necessarily improve our lives, it seems to me we're on a course towards destroying life on Earth all while reveling in the idea that we're making progress. Maybe if we thought more about what we are doing, rather than just keep on doing whatever we're doing, we wouldn't be going that way. — leo

That is the very problem. If we have science without a purpose, science without philosophy, science will stagnate and any science that is done will be done without purpose or reason. science may have caused some of our problems, but I think it wrong to believe that knowledge can be evil in any way. It is the application of this knowledge that hurts us. I think that is one of the many places we find our use. We can use science to fix any damage we've caused to our planet, but only if we can justify doing so, of course, with a philosophical argument.

I don't have a disgust for scientists, I have a disgust for the idea that thinking about what we are doing is useless, that it's useless to think about the meaning of what we're doing, to think about how certain the results we get are, to think about the beliefs and assumptions underlying what we do, to think about other world views we would get by picking other beliefs or assumptions, to think about the consequences of what we do. The idea that the only thing that's useful is to keep doing whatever we're doing because supposedly we're making Progress and supposedly we're getting closer to Truth and supposedly Science will solve all our problems. We might very well go on to destroy the world while being stuck in that cult. — leo

This is what I was trying to get across before- don't let it happen. It will take more than just a handful of us, but we need to get across that this can and will happen. We can find the ideas of scientists disgusting all we like, but unless we work with them, they won't change, and we will suffer from the destruction of our world. Furthermore, if we continue to find flaws and fix them, not only philosophy in science but all of us finding flaws everywhere and fixing them, we can make this world a better place.

To scoff at the ignorant and be annoyed at their shortcomings may be amusing for a while, but eventually their problems become yours. We all live on the same planet, after all.

In my experience in school, science and mathematics contexts often had no time for philosophy because a common approach was to simply not care about those sorts of issues. There was a purely pragmatic, instrumental approach most of the time--they were merely concerned with whatever worked, whatever accounted for data/observations, and whatever produced results in applied settings. Focusing on what was "really the case ontologically," how we could know certain things, etc. was seen as a waste of time that had no practical upshot. — Terrapin Station

I suffer from that approach to this day. If I was taught more than just what worked, I would have thought math was interesting a long time ago and became better at it.

So gravity and spacetime are reifications. — T Clark

Reification is the act of reifying, of treating an idea as a concrete thing, it doesn't mean anything to say gravity and spacetime are reifications, they are ideas. Treating them as concrete things is a reification.

What about electromagnetic radiation, subatomic particles, the universe, galaxies, forests, black holes. — T Clark

I'm going to answer them all because I find it interesting to think about.

Electromagnetic radiation is an idea, we don't see electromagnetic radiation propagating. Some of the things we do observe behave as if there is invisible stuff propagating between them at a specific speed, and it can be useful to see it that way, but it's also equally valid to say that there is nothing propagating and that things interact at a distance with a small delay.

Strictly speaking I would say treating electromagnetic radiation as a concrete thing is a reification (in part because of the way electromagnetic radiation is characterized: it is said to consist of an oscillating electric field which generates an oscillating magnetic field, which itself generates an oscillating electric field and so on, whereas it has been shown theoretically that there is no causal link between the two, so picturing electromagnetic radiation as concrete electric and magnetic fields mutually creating one another is decidedly a reification).

Same goes with subatomic particles, we don't observe them, however it can be useful to imagine that they are really there, but it's not necessary. Again this is not to say that we don't observe the effects that we do observe.

The universe is an idea, we don't see the universe, we imagine that we see parts of it.

It is customary to think that things we see through telescopes are real things out there that we can hardly see with the naked eye (or not at all). It's surely possible to come up with a model that says that galaxies only exist through telescopes, but personally I do believe like pretty much most people that there really are galaxies out there made of stars and planets and so on. But if we were really pedantic we could say that until we travel to them and see that they're really there, we can't know that they exist outside of telescopes. The ontological difference between galaxies and curved spacetime though is that we don't see the latter in any way.

If we define a forest as a bunch of trees close to each other, sometimes we do see that, so concrete thing.

A black hole is an idea, but it most likely refers to a concrete thing as well (in the sense a collapsed star so dense that we cannot see it directly). In principle one way to check it's concrete would be to travel towards it. Whereas there is no way to check for curved spacetime.

I'll go back to oceans again. Salt water is concrete, but I don't see how an ocean is. — T Clark

Yes, a whole ocean exists as an idea, unless you see Earth from above and see one all at once.

We know space time using the same general techniques as we use to know stars - indirectly through observations of radiation which has been travelling for millions or billions are years. — T Clark

Again we don't see curved spacetime in any way, I thought I gave enough reasons why. We can interpret any observation and experiment in a flat space or in a curved space, spacetime is not a concrete thing that can curve and that we observe in any way. For instance gravitational lensing can be interpreted as light having a curved trajectory rather than as space being curved. Einstein himself saw spacetime as a tool of thought, not as a concrete thing. What more do you need?

I think if we want to be respected, it's up to us to gain that respect. We can't count on outsiders to just give us the benefit of the doubt when everything they see says otherwise. — TogetherTurtle

I don't really care if philosophy is respected. I come to it for my own benefit, for what it gives me. I got here from science and math. That lead me to want to look deeper into what stands behind it.

I don't think anything self-identified as philosophy will be able to make much of a contribution to science. Call it something else - scientific methodology, principles of science, goals of scientific investigations, the structure of scientific knowledge.

Moral and political philosophy might have more to offer.

t is hypocritical to have physics without metaphysics, but those who live hypocrisy don't realize they're living it. I would assume even you and I live some sort of hypocrisy. We have to rely on others to make us question things we take for granted. — TogetherTurtle

I don't think hypocrisy is the right word. Lack of perspective is more like it. Lack of introspection maybe. Lack of an understanding of principles.

I don't really care if philosophy is respected. I come to it for my own benefit, for what it gives me. I got here from science and math. That lead me to want to look deeper into what stands behind it. — T Clark

Personally, I don't care much for respect either. What others think specifically about me is subject to change anyway. However, I do care for what a respect for philosophy in others can add to the world and in return benefit all of us.

When people think about why they're doing things, or what their goal is, they typically both work better and do jobs worth doing.

Those things that stand behind math and science are actually the things holding math and science up. Without the ideas that make science and math represent reality, they don't represent reality. As is said often in this thread, without philosophy, science is just another religion.

I don't think anything self-identified as philosophy will be able to make much of a contribution to science. Call it something else - scientific methodology, principles of science, goals of scientific investigations, the structure of scientific knowledge.

Moral and political philosophy might have more to offer. — T Clark

Aren't those things based in philosophical ideas?

Moral and political philosophy are also very important. I think people tend to stay to firm in their stances in those however. That's probably a similar problem to the one we're discussing for scientific circles.

I don't think hypocrisy is the right word. Lack of perspective is more like it. Lack of introspection maybe. Lack of an understanding of principles. — T Clark

Maybe they lack the perspective to see the hypocrisy? I think that it's hypocritical to denounce something that all of your work you stand by relies on.

Aren't those things based in philosophical ideas? — TogetherTurtle

Yes, but I think they should be called something else because of the disdain and lack of understanding felt for philosophy.

Yes, but I think they should be called something else because of the disdain and lack of understanding felt for philosophy. — T Clark

Why not solve the problem at the source? In all my time fixing things, (fixing things is a large part of my current job) temporary solutions have only caused more problems. They're ok if you need a quick fix to get through a day, but they don't last forever. If you want to want a functioning system, you need to address problems directly.

Instead of masquerading useful philosophy as something else, we should instead prove that philosophy is useful. It's certainly possible to do so, we've already discussed the uses. The hard part is the convincing of others. I think rhetoric would be useful in this regard. We have to make people want to see, otherwise they will avert their gaze.

"Science" has replaced Metaphysics. Because the reasoning is better suited to task, this is not necessarily negative. — thewonder

And what is this task, for which science is so much more suitable? :chin:

The hard part is the convincing of others. — TogetherTurtle

That's always the hard part. :up:

"Science" has replaced Metaphysics. — thewonder

That's a bit like saying that cage-fighting has replaced wallpaper. Apples and oranges, as they say.

That is the very problem. If we have science without a purpose, science without philosophy, science will stagnate and any science that is done will be done without purpose or reason. science may have caused some of our problems, but I think it wrong to believe that knowledge can be evil in any way. It is the application of this knowledge that hurts us. I think that is one of the many places we find our use. We can use science to fix any damage we've caused to our planet, but only if we can justify doing so, of course, with a philosophical argument. — TogetherTurtle

But we already have science with a purpose, that purpose is Progress or Truth, which supposedly will solve all our problems. Scientists believe that what they do gives us Progress and brings us closer to Truth which will solve our problems. But they won't acknowledge that their own beliefs may be partially responsible for our problems, and that they are not necessarily getting closer to Truth, and that their achievements do not necessarily have to be seen as Progress. Philosophy is sorely needed here, to think about what they are doing, but they won't have it.

I disagree that science can fix any damage if we keep treating it as separate from philosophy, rather I would argue that seeing science as separate from philosophy has caused a lot of damage itself, but we still believe that we will fix our problems by applying what has caused them in the first place.

I didn't imply knowledge can be inherently evil, indeed the problem is how people see it and what they do with it. I agree with Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

This is what I was trying to get across before- don't let it happen. It will take more than just a handful of us, but we need to get across that this can and will happen. We can find the ideas of scientists disgusting all we like, but unless we work with them, they won't change, and we will suffer from the destruction of our world. Furthermore, if we continue to find flaws and fix them, not only philosophy in science but all of us finding flaws everywhere and fixing them, we can make this world a better place. — TogetherTurtle

I get your point, but how do you get a cult to change their mind? It's as if you're looking at a child doing something stupid, and you can tell he's going to hurt us and eventually hurt himself, but no matter what you say to him he won't listen to you. And then it's not one child, it's a billion of them. You may spend enormous effort to make one change his mind, but meanwhile ten new ones have replaced him. I don't know how to wake people up, I just don't. Even if you find flaws they don't listen, so the flaws don't get fixed.

Years ago I had come to the realization that the only way they would listen is if we came up with a theory that is more simple than the ones we have now (for instance in fundamental physics), but that can explain more and predict more than the ones we have now. This way they would see the use of philosophizing about what they do, as it would be philosophy that got them out of their impasse. But then I thought, probably they still wouldn't see the use of philosophy, they would just say that whoever came up with that theory is a genius, a new Einstein, and they would misinterpret the concepts that the theory uses, and then they would build new theories on top of it while adding their own misconceptions and fallacies, and nothing would have fundamentally changed.

Most people only listen to status and money, that's what runs the world. So I thought if I want to change things, I need to climb the social ladder and get a lot of money, and then I would have the power to make people really listen. But then I realized I'm not good at making money, I don't have the right mindset for it, I like to help people, I don't like to ask for something in exchange. And this society runs on people who want to take from others, not help others without asking anything in return. It's like a huge machine that can't be stopped and that will run its course until it has destroyed so much that it will die while taking almost everything with it, and meanwhile all we can do is watch.

But we already have science with a purpose, that purpose is Progress or Truth — leo

Hmmm. :chin:

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. — website

[Original website is here.]

To say that the purpose of science is "Progress or Truth" is to assign aspirational aims to science, aims that are not an intrinsic part of science, nor do they define or describe its purpose. Even the definition I have quoted goes too far. Science is not a suitable tool to examine the (human) "social world". I'd go farther: the misuse of science these days mainly centres on our social world, and the complete inability of science to address it usefully.

Why not solve the problem at the source? In all my time fixing things, (fixing things is a large part of my current job) temporary solutions have only caused more problems. They're ok if you need a quick fix to get through a day, but they don't last forever. If you want to want a functioning system, you need to address problems directly. — TogetherTurtle

I'm not talking about a "quick fix" or "temporary solution." Science was once part of philosophy, so let's make the philosophy of science part of science. But we won't call it that, we'll call it something not freighted with negative meanings for some scientists. I love philosophy, but that doesn't obscure the fact that it really isn't anything, at least not anymore.

Instead of masquerading useful philosophy as something else, we should instead prove that philosophy is useful. It's certainly possible to do so, we've already discussed the uses. — TogetherTurtle

I'm not suggesting masquerading, I'm talking about unmasking. The philosophy of science belongs as part of science. Splitting it off is artificial and misleading.

That's a bit like saying that cage-fighting has replaced wallpaper. Apples and oranges, as they say. — Pattern-chaser

Seems to me it's more like apples and apple trees.

To say that the purpose of science is "Progress or Truth" is to assign aspirational aims to science, aims that are not an intrinsic part of science, nor do they define or describe its purpose. Even the definition I have quoted goes too far. Science is not a suitable tool to examine the (human) "social world". I'd go farther: the misuse of science these days mainly centres on our social world, and the complete inability of science to address it usefully. — Pattern-chaser

I was talking about the purpose of science in the minds of many scientists and people, to them there is no need to think about science and about what scientists do and about where science is going, because to them it is on a path to Progress and Truth. I capitalize Progress and Truth because they worship it and want to attain it, like other people worship and want to attain God. That's why I'm saying many scientists and people don't see science as lacking a purpose, they don't see the need for philosophy, to them Science has a purpose and they're moving towards it. And of course I see that as a huge problem, that's why I keep saying that Science has become a religion.

I was talking about the purpose of science in the minds of many scientists and people, to them there is no need to think about science and about what scientists do and about where science is going, because to them it is on a path to Progress and Truth. — leo

I think a lot of scientists recognize that there are significant problems that undermine the credibility of science and scientists. We've talked about some of them previously in this thread - Replication problems, fraud, misleading interpretation of results for gain, poorly designed studies, misuse of statistics, public distrust of science, the inability to translate scientific results to effective public policy, political interference.

Whether or not that's enough to lead to improvements, I think the solutions will have to come from within scientific institutions. I don't think there's anyone else to do it.

Metaphysics is more complex than I have made it out to be. In so far that Metaphysics addresses "What is?", I feel like "Science" is better suited to discover what actually exists. To me, Metaphysics is sort of the school of thought from when all philosophers were polymaths and part-time astronomers.

I was talking about the purpose of science in the minds of many scientists and people, to them there is no need to think about science and about what scientists do and about where science is going, because to them it is on a path to Progress and Truth. — leo

Why are we only worried about 'science'? Doesn't every other field (that is non-artistic) fairly flippantly dismiss philosophy as well? And the more loose and and general the philosophy, the less they will be willing to engage. Questions like 'what is the meaning of life?' are sure to make people tune out (after they have given their 30 second answer anyway).

But I don't see how this is a problem at the individual level. If some scientist is studying the link between say, bipedalism and handedness (why do bipeds tend to have a dominant hand while quadrupeds show less preference), where does the philosophy of Progress and Truth come in?

I think you are correct to suggest that Science should remember philosophy (more accurately, acknowledge the truth of its existence - they sound like people claiming to have no beliefs or emotions). However, it seems strange to think it is a problem for most individual scientists doing their job (I am not even sure you are suggesting this, but it seems to be implied).

I feel like "Science" is better suited to discover what actually exists. — thewonder

Concerning "discovering what actually exists", that is only a small part of the story. A good part of the world we live in, was purposely built like that. We do not live in pristine nature. In fact, we would probably not be able to survive in pristine nature. We probably never even did. We have always shaped nature around us, to suit us.

For example, by merely studying nature, and looking for patterns in it, you cannot uncover the world of automata, because they simply do not exist in nature. Automata theory was painstakingly designed and developed long before Jon Von Neumann proposed his now ubiquitous computer architecture (1945).

Automata theory and abstract machines are epistemically out of reach for science. In a world where all knowledge must be acquired through experimental testing, i.e. in a world of scientism, we would still be living in caves.

Is that Metaphysics, though?

But we already have science with a purpose, that purpose is Progress or Truth, which supposedly will solve all our problems. Scientists believe that what they do gives us Progress and brings us closer to Truth which will solve our problems. But they won't acknowledge that their own beliefs may be partially responsible for our problems, and that they are not necessarily getting closer to Truth, and that their achievements do not necessarily have to be seen as Progress. Philosophy is sorely needed here, to think about what they are doing, but they won't have it. — leo

I think the purpose of science for most scientists is monetary gain.

Most people only listen to status and money, that's what runs the world. — leo

Is Truth really a motivating goal in itself? Only if you want it, I suppose, and you would only want it if you see it as something that would improve your life.

Most scientists I would assume take for granted the work of others before them in their field. This is understandable because they have very little to gain from uprooting what they've learned and very much to gain from discovering something new that confirms it. I would say that while they do find "truths" and often these truths are true, sometimes these truths are false, and only because the works they build upon are flawed.

As for progress, I think it's a mixed bag. Sure, pollution seems like a bad idea, and I think most people realize that, but perhaps it was a necessary evil? The industrial revolution was perhaps just the growing pains of a civilization that will eventually be great. Of course, we don't know that for sure, and of course, if that's the case, we should probably grow a bit faster.

I think almost every field facilitates progress. Even the lowly fast food employee helps feed the masses and keep them working toward some kind of progress. Every person who learns something new about the universe and every person who applies something learned about the universe is making some sort of progress for the human race.

You can only make progress towards some sort of ends. That ends should be what everyone on this Earth wants, and I think that is eudaimonia. The ultimate goal for the individual is a world where they can be fulfilled their entire life, and so that is what we all collectively strive for, fulfilment.

I disagree that science can fix any damage if we keep treating it as separate from philosophy, rather I would argue that seeing science as separate from philosophy has caused a lot of damage itself, but we still believe that we will fix our problems by applying what has caused them in the first place. — leo

We draw imaginary lines between our fields of study. Where does biology start and physics begin? If you could define that objectively, then you could narrow down how abiogenesis happened to far fewer theories than there are now.

The same with philosophy and science. Philosophy is the foundation upon which science is built, but where exactly does one begin and one end? They are fundamentally intertwined. All of our subjects are.

There is nothing isolated in the entire universe except in our imagination, and if we wish for our knowledge to be true, a good first step would probably be the breaking down of these invisible boundary lines between otherwise related fields. Sure, we could arbitrarily decide where the line is, but I believe that would be more of a hinderance than a boon too our purpose.

Science, generally speaking, is at the very least an attempt to know about the physical world, and at most actually knowing about the physical world. I think that it's reasonable to say that if we have a problem in the physical world, they're the experts.

They have a bit of an Iron Man complex as of late. Sure, they destroyed the environment to improve our industry, but they'll fix the environment too, eventually, when it becomes a big enough problem. That kind of foolhardiness is dangerous, and should probably be kept in check. Of course, part of the problem is that anyone can become a scientist now, as long as you're willing to carry a few thousand dollars of debt for a while. You don't necessarily have to have an appreciation for science to do it, just a desire for a paycheck. I won't lie to you, I'll do a lot for a big enough paycheck, not even necessarily just for indulgences. I've got stuff to pay for.

With knowledge of the physical world, you can do things in the physical world. The problem is with motivation. If scientists see no reason to fix something, they won't. To compound the issue, most are easily distracted from issues by a big enough paycheck. Scientists will do what they're paid to do, the problem is that no one want to pay them to fix environmental problems, and the reason no one will is that the people who have enough money to pay for them don't benefit from fixing those problems.

I get your point, but how do you get a cult to change their mind? It's as if you're looking at a child doing something stupid, and you can tell he's going to hurt us and eventually hurt himself, but no matter what you say to him he won't listen to you. And then it's not one child, it's a billion of them. You may spend enormous effort to make one change his mind, but meanwhile ten new ones have replaced him. I don't know how to wake people up, I just don't. Even if you find flaws they don't listen, so the flaws don't get fixed. — leo

You have to convince them that you're on their side, because you are. You have to not be cruel. You have to convince people that they want to be convinced. On the individual level, you have to relate and appeal to their worldview. It's easier said than done.

In making your comparison to children, you inadvertently make a point. I think the problem starts at a young age. Children are taught from a young age to shut up and listen to facts. They aren't necessarily told the significance of those facts. Of course, talking about the significance of color in art while teaching kindergarteners about colors is probably going a bit over their heads, but at the very least we can tell high school students why the quadratic formula is important, as opposed to a few of them finding out later and regretting not learning it. No one ever told me, and so I just didn't learn how to do the problems to be frank. I now regret that.

I know the kind of people you're talking about. I went to school with quite a few of them. I knew a math wizard who was incredibly catholic. He didn't even question enough to realize that the only thing in his life he did blindly was believe in god. Not that that's a bad thing or an unrealistic belief, but the level of self awareness in that man's brain was so damn low. I made fun of him accordingly.

But he never came around. The reason why is that I only wanted to make fun of him. My own selfish drive to assert myself as dominant was the cause for his stagnation. Not that I regret it too much, I had more fun doing that than he probably had in his whole life, but if I had imprinted some sort of appreciation for complexity instead of a slave-like obedience to it, that probably would have been a more responsible use of my time.

Of course, I'm not saying that you were making fun of anyone, what I am trying to say is that you have to be a friend rather than a rival. Offer your services, and if they say no, be their friend anyway.

And of course, it's difficult to appeal to many people on an individual level, but it's done all the time actually. No matter what you think of the intellect of most movie stars, people do genuinely seem to like them.

Years ago I had come to the realization that the only way they would listen is if we came up with a theory that is more simple than the ones we have now (for instance in fundamental physics), but that can explain more and predict more than the ones we have now. This way they would see the use of philosophizing about what they do, as it would be philosophy that got them out of their impasse. But then I thought, probably they still wouldn't see the use of philosophy, they would just say that whoever came up with that theory is a genius, a new Einstein, and they would misinterpret the concepts that the theory uses, and then they would build new theories on top of it while adding their own misconceptions and fallacies, and nothing would have fundamentally changed. — leo

Then there is a fundamental problem, no? I think it unlikely that the basis of physics would be flawed if it was done so long ago by such different people and still stands. The problem, at its source, seems to be in people.

The problem seems to be a lack of omnipotence. I highly doubt anyone is making up flawed science just for kicks. The people who put out that kind of stuff likely think they're doing the right thing. It isn't even really their fault, their mind just didn't see the whole truth. We all suffer from this.

I think a lack of omnipotence could be downplayed with a good amount of caution and skepticism, not only toward people that are obviously wrong, but towards everything. What we need to do is make it beneficial for scientists to do that, because if we're speaking honestly, I wouldn't go out of my way to do it either. Everyone loves being sure and hates doubting what they're sure about. People want structure.

Most people only listen to status and money, that's what runs the world. So I thought if I want to change things, I need to climb the social ladder and get a lot of money, and then I would have the power to make people really listen. But then I realized I'm not good at making money, I don't have the right mindset for it, I like to help people, I don't like to ask for something in exchange. And this society runs on people who want to take from others, not help others without asking anything in return. It's like a huge machine that can't be stopped and that will run its course until it has destroyed so much that it will die while taking almost everything with it, and meanwhile all we can do is watch. — leo

I don't think you would make people really listen, they would just do what you say without needing them to listen.

I too sometimes have an issue with taking money for things. I think this is something we need to get around. If you want to change anything, anywhere, you have to be able throw your weight around a bit. I think a good way to start justifying it to ourselves is by only using profit for the greater good. I've convinced myself that I don't need too much to live, so any profit I make is likely to go into an investment fund for compounding until later use.

I've spoken a lot of what others have to gain, but what of us? I think that if we aren't just talking nonsense, then saving a world headed for destruction is payment enough for me, even if nobody knows.

I'm not talking about a "quick fix" or "temporary solution." Science was once part of philosophy, so let's make the philosophy of science part of science. But we won't call it that, we'll call it something not freighted with negative meanings for some scientists. I love philosophy, but that doesn't obscure the fact that it really isn't anything, at least not anymore. — T Clark

Where does science begin and philosophy end? If we don't know that, how are we supposed to know what we call science and what philosophy?

I'm not suggesting masquerading, I'm talking about unmasking. The philosophy of science belongs as part of science. Splitting it off is artificial and misleading. — T Clark

If true, I find it strange that philosophical ideas can be exclusively part of science and not of both.

Where are we drawing our invisible lines this time?

That's always the hard part. — Pattern-chaser

It isn't the hard part when you're convincing others of something that they want to believe.

Where does science begin and philosophy end? If we don't know that, how are we supposed to know what we call science and what philosophy? — TogetherTurtle

That's sort of my point - they don't. They used to be together and that's where they belong.

Then I see no reason to convince people of something that isn’t true. I think this grey area is what we should be bringing awareness to, instead of changing names to better fit a compartmentalized view of a very non-compartmentalized world.

Is that Metaphysics, though? — thewonder

If we define metaphysics as "presuppositionalism", then automata theory, being clearly axiomatic, is in a sense, indeed, "presuppositionalist".

By presupposing what we want the world to be, we occasionally manage to change it to match our presuppositions.

I think that I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that I would define Metaphysics as being "presuppositional". Metaphysics assumes that there are things that are "out there" that are "true". I don't quite know how to put this as I am just parcelling this out. It seems to assume that there is an abstract truth that exists which is independent of the human experience. I feel like the methodology was a substitution for the mythic that didn't go quite far enough. It proceeds too much from Platonic forms. Granted, I'm only really considering Western Metaphysics, and haven't really given the methodology quite enough credit.

Edit: Like, what I mean is, like, that there's no abstract thing that is "out there". Like, when you do logic, things are defined as being "true" and then you discover what is comparable as according to the rules that have been defined. "Truth" is not discovered through abstract reasoning. Concerning "What is?", scientific methodology is better suited to discover what there is and what it is like. If I want to know about a rock, I will ask a geologist. A Metaphysician no longer has all that much to tell me about a rock.

I've written this in a colloquial sense because I'm not quite sure how to get this across, but, like, what I mean is that there is no abstract "thing". I guess I feel like Metaphysics assumes that another abstract world exists somehow.

Metaphysics assumes that there are things that are "out there" that are "true". — thewonder

The idea that there are things out there that are true is a metaphysical position, but it is not the only one.

I think that I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that I would define Metaphysics as being "presuppositional". Metaphysics assumes that there are things that are "out there" that are "true". — thewonder

Metaphysics study is conducted using deduction from that which is known a priori. Like foundational mathematics (which is sometimes considered a special case of metaphysics applied to the existence of number), it tries to give a coherent account of the structure of the world, capable of explaining our everyday and scientific perception of the world, and being free from contradictions.

"To know a priori" is a synonym for "to presuppose".

A "presuppositional" approach to the world is viable when it concerns issues where we have enough degrees of freedom. Morality is like that, but technology is, to an important extent, also like that. We do not merely accept the world as it is. On the contrary, we actively shape it, not because the things we want, are true and out there, but because we want them to become true and out there.

To be honest, I do have a fairly rudimentary understanding of Metaphysics. From what I glean, the methodology does sort of assume that there is an abstract truth that is to be deigned somehow.